discharging his firearm? >> yes. >> did you hear him refer to the person he ended up shooting, trayvon martin, as an asshole? >> i do know that, yes. >> so the term -- >> i think that people like to give too much weight. if you look at it in the con e text in which it was stated, his reference in that statement was addressing his -- clearly addressing his frustration from previous calls in which the individuals got away. his verbiage chosen may not be

the most appropriate but i don't necessarily mean just because somebody has said that means they mean ill will. >> but the target of his frustration, you understand, was trayvon martin. >> owe would have to say the comment, in my opinion, the comment, that frustration was being voiced at the fact he's made numerous calls. the fact that he -- i mean the other alternative is to go, wow, these fellows always get away. i don't know what his general speech pattern is like in regards to how he refers to everybody else. in and of itself, i don't see that variable as showing ill will. >> let me ask you, you had a conversation with the defendant, did you not? >> i did. >> i don't recall if he was asked specifically about that. >> in his conversation --

>> he did not call me that. >> did i understand you to say that the most important factor about the safety of the -- of any firearm is the responsibility of the user? >> sure. >> so an irresponsible person can be really, really dangerous? >> absolutely. any person that is reckless with their firearm can be dangerous, sure. >> i want to talk for a moment about your connection with this case. you told the jury that you actually reached out to the defense? >> correct. >> tell the jury when you started your consulting company, what you're doing now. >> i started doing consulting work at the -- i want to say it was 2011.

2012 through tactical advantage solutions. in 2013 i started dennis root and associates which is a private investigations, an expert witness firm. >> dennis root and associates you started earlier this year? >> yes. >> you understood when you contacted the defense in this case that this case was getting national, if not worldwide attention? >> of course. >> and you understood that there would be live coverage of this trial if you testified, is that right. >> yes, sir. >> you're on live television, assuming those cameras are working. >> yes. >> and the name of your company is on live television, right? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> so that's good for your company. you would agree with that, right? >> i see where you're going. it's good for my company but there wasn't really other options as far as approaching the state in the same way.

>> didn't you think that you being a witness might do your company some good, you might get your name out there. >> there is no question anybody that's seen anything about this case would be aware of the fact that it's getting media coverage. anybody did that their home work about me knows the fact i'm dedicated to finding the truth and supporting the truth. when i approached mr. o'mara about it, it's because i knew that the state would be able to gain access to somebody just like me with no issue. if i had approached the state about this, and let's say i determined whatever that it wasn't going to be supported for the state or it would be, let's say for instance, i found that i wouldn't be supportive, i now could not be in any way of assistance to the defense. however, if i reached out to the defense and i provided them with the opportunity and i found that, whoa, wait, i can't be of

assistance to you, i have not hindered the case in any way and i could walk away without any problems affecting either way. the fact that i gained some kind of media coverage from it isn't my fault because those of us that are dedicated to the truth, those cameras are here. that's not why i'm here. >> and isn't it true you've advertised the very fact that you are a witness in this case? >> yes, sir. >> i mean you've tweeted that out, right? >> tweeted. i haven't tweeted it. >> how did you advertise it? >> when i was put on the case every attorney that i know knew about it. obviously in the fields that i go in, the attorneys just like every other profession talk. and then just this morning, i let -- i texted my friends to let them know i would be testifying here today. >> in fact, you haven't been paid yet, have you? >> no, sir. >> your agreement is you may get paid, you may not, is that right. >> that's correct. >> that's not your normal practice, right. >> actually, sir, depending on

the case that comes through, you would know i've done some things for free. i've done some things for some people for $20 an hour and i've gotten paid up to $175 an hour. i really base it on the case that's presented to me. >> didn't you provide me with an invoice sheet or the way you bill clients? >> for the expert witness, sir? >> right. >> yes, sir. >> that's what you're doing here today. >> yes. >> it's $1,500 initially and then $125 an hour after that? >> yes. the way it breaks down basically is if i'm hired in as an expert, my general fee schedule is there's a $1,500 deposit. and my hourly rate is $125 an hour. that is for a case prep and review. then on the dates that i testify either by deposition or i testify in court, my hourly rate is $175 an hour and that includes travel time and wait time. >> and actually you've never testified before a jury before, have you? >> excluding --

>> in a court like this. >> you mean grand juries? >> correct. >> yes. this is the first time i've actually testified before a jury in a criminal case. in expert capacity. i've testified, obviously, as an officer in a criminal case numerous times. >> you've testified against police officers, right? >> testified against police officers? >> yes, sir. >> i have been presented with cases that i found that the officer was wrong, yes, sir. >> you've testified to that? >> that went through deposition, not trial. >> correct. i mean under oath. >> oh, yes, sir. >> all right. but you've never testified in a case like this where one person -- i mean in court -- where one person shoots another and the shooter is claiming self-defense? >> no, this was the first time i was ever presented with something like this. >> and you yourself have never been involved in a police shooting, have you?

>> i'm fortunate enough, no, i've never had to shoot anyone. >> in fact you've never had to discharge your firearm in the course of your career, have you, other than at a range. >> other than training sessions, scenario-based training, i've never had to discharge my firearm in the line of duty. >> you've never had to use any other type of deadly force in your career, have you. >> explain deadly force. i've caused injury, things like that. >> you've never caused someone else's death during the course of your career? >> no, sir. >> all right. >> the classic cross of an expert witness. you are paid to do this. you came looking for the fame here. this happens all the time. does the jury believe it? or does the jury believe what he said? all of this we're going to continue with this expert witness, dennis root, a use of force expert. fascinating stuff.

back right after this. my mantra? trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur.

report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.

welcome back. that's because we're under cross-examination right now. there is this masterful cross-examiner. the prosecutor going after the defenses expert witness. a use of force expert. he's had a lot to say about the discharge of weapon, about the physicality of the two people involved in that fight that night trayvon died. and now he's been taken to task. have a listen. >> the evaluation of the case, just like the gentlemen said, i can't base it off somebody that may make self-serving statements. the concept of time that everybody constantly gets hung up on is the fact whether it's 15 seconds, 30 sections, a minute, whatever the case might be, everybody's concept of time is different. i don't make a huge deal out of what his perception of time would be for this given period.

the only person that you interviewed that had first-time information from this event from the start to the finish was the defendant, right? >> yes, sir. >> he was the only one that i actually spoke to in person outside of mr. pollock. unfortunately our schedules were such that i had to do it over the phone. i called him and spoke to him over the phone. >> you listened to a bunch of other statements. you read their written statements, right. >> yes, sir. >> nobody other than the defendant had a firsthand account from start to finish, did they? >> no. there was only one person there that is unfortunately here with us that can do that. >> are you aware that it was actually two minutes? between the time he hung up with the dispatcher and the time that trayvon martin's phone went down? were you aware of that fact. >> object, your honor. that would be a mischaracterization of the evidence. >> okay.

rephrase your question. >> did you know what time trayvon martin's phone went dead? >> can you explain to me what you mean by went dead. >> cut off. did you see the phone records. >> when the call ended? >> that's right. did you see that. >> the phone records from trayvon martin's phone. that one i can't -- i think i saw them but i don't know that i saw that particular variable. i don't want to say i saw something i didn't see. >> you thought you were provided everything. >> yes, sir. >> do you know if you were provided trayvon martin's cell phone records? >> there were cell phone records there. again, the cell phone itself to me when i was doing my evaluation, the actual cell phone, i didn't see the wait that it had when using the actual use of force event. the time line that's waiting to me, i can't speak directly to. >> did you have the testimony of

a woman named rachel gentile? >> rachel gentile? >> a young girl from miami was on the phone with trayvon martin. >> your honor, just not to interrupt, i don't know if he'd know her by that name. >> to the extent that that's an objection, overruled. >> okay. i'll rephrase it. >> yes, sir. >> did you hear the testimony of the woman who claimed to have been on the phone with trayvon martin. >> yes, sir. >> did you hear her say in her testimony that the phone went dead shortly after -- right after she heard a bump when she was talking to trayvon martin. >> yes, sir. >> okay. and create your time line. you said time lines are important. >> yes, sir. >> did you put together it was two minutes from the time the defendant hung up with the dispatcher and the time that trayvon martin's phone went dead? >> using those time lines and evaluating on time lines, there's a lot of questions that that time line creates and bean able to compare when the dispatcher's phone went.

i can't comment on how they were geosynced or gps'd or anything like that. there's a lot of things that miss gentile said were taking place during that time that don't seem to line up either. i want to be cautious how i restrict myself to your time line or that two minutes where if there's other variables if they were played out as they were elisted from her -- >> i'm asking you did you take note of the fact that there was a two-minute gap between the end of each of those calls? >> i did not give that weight, no, sir. >> all right. and your conversation with the defendant, he described this whole event. you didn't have a diagram where he claimed or an aerial photograph where he claimed the confrontation began. >> no, sir.

>> and you didn't have them marked how it progressed from where he claimed it started to where it ended. >> i didn't require mr. zimmerman to create any kind of drawings or mark on a picture or anything. >> the defendant did not describe for you from what direction he claimed that trayvon martin approached him. >> as far as the direction, that would have been my failure not to ask. if you mean by direction, north, south, east west, that would have been my failure not to ask that. >> i'm not talking about geography. i'm talking about front, back, side. >> it was pretty clear that he approached him from the front. >> you didn't ask the defendant what hand trayvon martin used to punch him, right? >> no, sir.

>> you didn't ask him how long it was between the time he got punched as he claims and the time he went to the ground. >> i didn't ask him for specific times. again, i reference back to what i already said. when i interview somebody for force event, time is so fluid, was it five seconds, ten seconds. there's a period of time that took place. it's fluid, movement, evolving. the presumption that once it begins their concept of time becomes less relevant. so i don't lock anyone, anyone, into a specific time line in that regard. >> i know. the time line is important to you, right? >> the overall time line, yes, sir. >> the defendant didn't describe for you how it was they moved from where he claimed the confrontation started to where they ended up? >> no. there was no explanation as far as how they transitioned. >> that fact doesn't speak to you about the level of the confrontation.

>> understanding the dynamics of a combat event or a fight, you know, there's a lot of things that spoke to me about what he said and the other witnesses said in this case. and when you evaluate it and look at it and how did you get from here to here, how did you end up on your book, why weren't you on top, the evolution of the event itself and the imperative part is when the actual physical confrontation began or when it intensified. where they transitioned being in combat events myself, being in fights, how did you get there? >> i apologize. >> we were involved in this person-to-person conflict. how they transition from one spot to the other spot given there was no major event that took place at that point, i didn't try to narrow him down on a time for that. >> you didn't ask him, not this time, how they got there, what happened in between? >> the fight started here and ended up on the ground there. i did not inquire from him

specifically how he got from this point to this point. >> right. as in whether or not they were rolling or whether or not they were fighting standing up to get over there, right? >> i would presume based on the physical evidence, i wouldn't presume they were rolling over there. whatever the struggle took place i personally didn't inquire about that, no, sir. >> okay. you were asked -- is that true? says here that cheerios has whole grain oats that can help remove some cholesterol, and that's heart healthy. ♪ [ dad ] jan?

so live at the seminole county criminal justice center. the trial continues with this expert. he's a use of force expert. his cross-examination by this prosecutor is all about getting your head slammed into the concrete. let's listen to where he goes with this. >> the face and head striking the concrete. >> we can put weight to various things. as an expert, each and every one of these things in and of themselves may not count for everything. it's the totality of everything. what causes the head to strike the concrete, it's clear his head was in contact with a hard surface based on t injuries on the back of it's had head. the striking of the face, could that be what caused him to hit the concrete, sure. if we think about mr. good's statement, mr. good's statement adjusted from when he initially gave his statement, if it was not always striking but pushing if mr. zimmerman's trying to

rise if he shoved back. even if it was a pushing down motion, could that result in his head striking the concrete? absolutely. regardless from my perspective, there's a variety of ways in which his head could have impacted the concrete. it's clear he was struck and did he make contact with the hard surface. >> i think you said you reviewed some medical records. >> yes, sir. >> did you review the medical record that -- where the woman measured the longest laceration on the back of his head as two centimeter? >> i don't want to quote -- they weren't that large if that's what you're asking. >> two centimeters is less than an inch. >> i'm not good with that if i have to be honest. two centimeters, i'll say yes. if that's less than an inch -- >> half a centimeter, does that sound right? >> okay. yes, sir. >> you didn't ask the defendant about whether any blood from his

nose got into his eyes or his mouth, did you? >> well, i didn't need to ask about the blood getting into his eyes because at the time the photographs were taken they seemed pretty fresh and there was no blood around his face. as far as in his mouth, i didn't ask that, no, sir. >> you didn't ask the defendant whether or not he tried to cover his face while this was going on? >> no, sir. i asked him to tell me what took place. >> you didn't ask the defendant whether or not he tried to strike trayvon martin? >> i didn't spend a lot of time asking him a lot of things. >> the defendant never told you, did he, what he was doing with his hands, did he, while this was going on? >> no, sir. i don't recall him saying anything. >> you talked about vantage point. >> yes, sir. >> you'd agree with me that out of all the people you heard

from, either talk to or have written statements or audio statements, the person with the best vantage point would have been the defendant, right? >> of course. >> he was there through the entire thing. he was an active participant. >> right. you would agree if trayvon martin had lived, his vantage point would be important, too? >> sure. absolutely. >> the defendant told you in his statement that trayvon martin was straddling him. right? >> yes, sir. >> and you understood that from the context of your conversation that trayvon martin was over the defendant's belly button, right. >> over his waist area. >> didn't you say previously over his belly button. >> during our conversation we had in deposition. i was not provided with a transcript.

i'm just going off memory here. i believe we discussed it and we identified it could be the waist. i mentioned a high mount. it can be over the waist, the belly button area but we also discussed in that i mentioned it could be down around the waist, upper thigh area. >> would it refresh your recollection to see a transcript of your deposition since you haven't had one to refresh yourself on what term you used? >> sure. >> council, page 53. >> just want to object to the attempt of impeachment. >> he's having him review it first. >> question was answered. >> he's entitled to show him the deposition. >> if he suggested he can't answer the question, he doesn't remember it. he answered it. >> if the answer is different. >> i'm entitled to refresh his recollection. >> can you please state the date and time of the deposition. >> mr. root you will recall it

was a week ago saturday, right? >> yes. saturday morning. >> we all appeared on a conference call? >> yes, sir. >> you were under oath at that time. >> i was. >> council, page 53, lines 10 through 16 if i may approach. let me ask you to review those -- that highlighted portion and see if that refreshes your memory as to what your understanding was as to where trayvon martin was specifically straddled on the defendant. mine was earned in djibouti, africa. 2004. vietnam in 1972. [ all ] fort benning, georgia in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve military members, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote.

usaa. we know what it means to serve.

welcome back live to florida, everyone. i'm ashleigh banfield, bringing you live coverage of the george zimmerman second degree murder trial. can i tell you, there are moments in a courtroom that live in posterity forever. they make themselves known on subsequent trials because they are full of drama, emotion and

sometimes the picture's a little too crazy for words. when we went to break, that happened. and so i'm not going to put you back into live testimony. what i'm going to do is play to you what happened when we went to commercial break. because let me just put it this way, sometimes you get demonstrative aides, sometimes you get evidentiary aides and sometimes a dummy, i mean a real dummy. john guy, who is no dummy brought out a dummy because so much of this case focuses on who was on the top, who was hitting whom. and this is what john guy want to get out of this expert who's on the stand right now. his name is dennis root, a use of force expert. he's been testifying because of the interviews he did and the evidence that he looked at and the analysis that he did. not because he was there. and it's been critical to see what he's been saying because he's been trying to verbalize a recreation of how this fight

went down before george zimmerman and trayvon martin. we've had other witnesses who have given evidence and testimony to suggest that it was not george zimmerman on the top, that it was trayvon martin on top. we heard about how science proved it was trayvon martin on top despite an incredible prosecution by the prosecutor. i know you want to be in the live testimony but you have to see this moment. we're just literally pushing the buttons to rerack this incredible demonstration for you. let me remine you, this is john guy doing the cross-examination of dennis root. he's gone over the issues of conflicting witnesses, that he is a former cop, knows witnesses get it wrong. witnesses need to be separated when they're interviewed or they can be poisoned in their memories. number three, zimmerman was not

fit. trayvon martin was fit. the fight wasn't fair. have a look at how he showed us what the fight was like. take a look at john guy with the demonstration. that you're going to see a lot of. >> you recognize this as being a human type figure? right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. it's actually got a belly button. >> it surely does. >> does it appear to be anatomically correct. >> for the belly button, yes, sir. >> so as the defendant described it to you, is this the way he described it in the area of the belly button. >> what's important right now, number one you've got your knees up pretty high on his waist. slide down just a little bit more. there you go. have a squat. i can't see your crotch, but in the area of his belly button. >> here's his belly button. am i in the area. >> yes, sir. >> did you have the defendant do this? >> no, sir. >> when you talked to him. >> no, sir. >> you didn't have him do that? >> no, sir. >> if this person, this mannequin were carrying a

firearm on their waist, where would the gun be right now in relation to me? >> would be at your left inner thigh. >> right here, right? >> yes. >> if he was right handed it would be at your inner thigh. >> underneath my leg. >> inside your leg. >> were you aware that the defendant described to his best friend that when he slid down the defendant slid down, that trayvon martin was up around his armpits? were you aware of that? >> no. i heard that. no, sir. >> where would the gun be now? >> now the gun would be behind your left leg. >> okay. >> i told you i would make sure you didn't miss any testimony in that courtroom. that was during the commercial break. john guy straddling a dummy, a

mannequin but very effective. you saw where the knees were, right? you saw what he was trying to suggest. here we have attorneys standing up at defense table making sure they have a good view of this. look at those defense attorneys, mark o'mara and don west, watching what's going on in the well of this courtroom, talking amongst themselves about this, almost ready for an objection. they're transfixed by all of this. they can't miss a moment. listen in. >> as this event is transitioning and you're coming back, if this comes back, then we maintain that. >> right. >> if it's a struggle that's forward, the 90 degree reference, i want to be clear. the manner in which you're describing, i don't know how you can get a 90 degree entry if you're sitting straight back like this. >> i'm not sitting straight back. >> from my perspective, it looks like you're more vertically

upright. and the two of you form a 90. if the two of you form a 90 where you're straight up and he brings a gun to bear, just based on the dynamics of his arm, there wouldn't be a way for it to go straight in. there has to be mutual movement. >> as if the defendant started to sit up and trayvon martin was getting up, you're saying there couldn't be a 90 degree angle. >> am i saying there couldn't be a 90 degree angle with him in a half up position and you trying to get up? my understanding, to maintain the entry, we'll have to maintain relativity between the two persons. right? >> right. >> so the relativity, i can sit here and say the same thing, if i'm laying completely back and you're more forward i can get a 90 degree entry. if we're both coming up, you're asking me to bring up conclusion. could it happen that way? the answer is question. if he's getting up and he's getting up together, sure. there's no way i soon sit here and say you couldn't have two people that are maintaining

alignment not have that entry. >> you were also provided the firearms report, right? you learned it was a contact wound with the clothing that trayvon martin had on? >> yes, sir, the clothing. >> but it wasn't a contact wound with his chest. >> correct. >> that would be consistent with trayvon martin leaning over when he got shot? >> yes, sir. >> sure. >> you were asked -- you actually spoke about the lighting. right? >> yes, sir. >> did you -- you actually went to the scene for the purpose of getting idea of the lighting, right? >> yes, sir. >> but you didn't get an idea of the lighting, did you? >> no. i failed to go take into account the change in season.

so when i got there, it was still daylight or dusk area. >> when was that? >> off the top of my head i can't remember the exact date. i think i might have told you in deposition but i don't remember exactly. >> could you ballpark it? was it in july? >> july, no. >> was it in june? >> maybe early june. i really -- i don't remember the exact date. >> so you went to the scene to try to get an idea of the lighting. >> yes, sir. >> the sun had not gone down. >> correct. it was not completely set. >> you didn't wait until it had set? >> no, sir. >> you didn't go back? >> no. >> when it was dark some other day? >> no. ke 13. geico's defensive driver, good student and multi-policy discounts could save you hundreds of dollus. engineer: uh geico's discounts could save you hundreds of "doll-ars." it sounds like you're saying "dollus."

dollus. engineeif you could accentuate the "r" sound of "dollars." are...are... are... engineer: are... arrrrrr. arrrrr. someone bring me an eye patch, i feel like a bloomin' pirate. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. honestly, i feel like i nailed that. ♪ hooking up the country whelping business run ♪ ♪ build! we're investing big to keep our country in the lead. ♪ load! we keep moving to deliver what you need. and that means growth, lots of cargo going all around the globe. cars and parts, fuel and steel, peas and rice, hey that's nice! ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪ ♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪ ...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good.

[ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke.

back into the live trial as prosecutor john guy continues to cross-examine the defense expert. >> the creative side of our brains will fill it in and find a way. that is another reason why if you wait too long and get people with too many other reactions, now they have outside influences. what they said adding more importance at that point, that would be inaccurate because the information they need is about that night, not somebody else's

interpretation about what somebody else said. >> you talked about the use of force continuum, right? >> yes, sir. >> and that's -- explain that for the jury, what that is. >> like i said, it's a force containment, systematics approach to escalation and de-escalation of force, taking into consideration background training, if "x" happens you can't respond with "y." the idea is to give an objectively reasonable objection to two behaviors. >> if trayvon martin was backing up as i demonstrated a moment ago, that would be a de-escalation of force. >> if a person is disengaging it would be a de-escalation as long as they're not going to another weapon. a backing up if i were giving up, that's a de-escalation.

>> you also mentioned in the force continuum there are options, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. you would agree with me that someone in the defendant's position had other options? >> i would disagree with you, sir. you're telling many he that somebody in the defendant's position, the moment that perception became a deadly force encounter, the only option that's justifiable would be that, would be the actual application of that level of force. i mean, we can sit here all day long and come up with a thousand things that may have been able to have been done but the reality comes back to what a person is perceiving to be their reality and what the approved responses are for that given reality. >> okay. you don't know what was in his head, did you? >> based solely on the information that i reviewed, based on what i heard from the 911 calls, based on the

inclusion of the physical evidence of the injuries to his face and the back of his head, and the fact that in my opinion, most of that information meshes together, so i can draw my opinion and i can come to the conclusion of what i believe the perception to be. and based on that perception, i know what a generalized outcome could or should be. >> when you said one, are you talking about the ones with the screams on it. >> yes, sir. >> you're not telling this jury that george zimmerman is the one screaming, are you? >> i'm not telling the jury anything other than what i just told you. if you take into consideration the 911 call, you take into consideration whether it was him or not. i wasn't there. i couldn't tell you that. i can you you based on mr. good's statements, the screams for help were coming from the bottom, otherwise he would have been hearing an echoing sound. if you take that concept and

include it in, you would come away with those screams were mr. zimmerman's screams. if somebody is coming out saying hey, stop, and there's no indication from you as the person on top trying to hold somebody back that you need help and that your inference is that those screams were his help, why was there no acknowledgement behind him? any one of these things don't tell the whole story. it's about taking the information and considering all of the components and coming to a conclusion. >> let me ask you this. in your experience if trayvon martin or anyone would have been in that situation and would have been aware of the defendant's gun, either seen it or felt it, would you expect them to scream for help? >> you're asking me if somebody saw -- if i am beating the crud out of you and i suddenly know you have a gun would i suddenly

be screaming for help. >> would that be unusual. >> if i was trayvon martin in that situation and we take it to the place that we've gone with the physical evidence where i'm the aggressor, i'm on you and suddenly i see you have a gun, my first instinct as the aggressor is not going to be to scream for help. my first instinct if i'm the one being the aggressor is to go for the help that will help me continue my aggression. not prevent it. >> it would be unusual for a person who saw someone they were in combat with with a firearm, would it be unusual for that person to yell for help in your experience? >> i want to make sure i'm clear. you just said would it be unusual for a person involved in a combat situation to suddenly see a gun and scream for help? is that the question? i want to make sure i'm clear. i don't want to misinterpret this. i want to be careful on what i say with what you're asking. >> i'm trying to make it more

simple. if a person sees a firearm would it be unusual for them to yell for help. >> if an average individual saw a gun and it was pointed at them, i would say absolutely not. if you're able to vocalize something you would yell for help. i would hope if you're looking down the barrel of a gun and you'd be in fear for your life. >> there are other options that george zimmerman could have used to get out -- shop. (girl) diving lessons. (guy) we should totally do that. (girl ) yeah, right. (guy) i wannna catch a falcon! (girl) we should do that. (guy) i caught a falcon. (guy) you could eat a bug. let's do that. (guy) you know you're eating a bug. (girl) because of the legs. (guy vo) we got a subaru to take us new places. (girl) yeah, it's a hot spring. (guy) we should do that. (guy vo) it did. (man) how's that feel? (guy) fine. (girl) we shouldn't have done that. (guy) no. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

it's been that way since the day you met. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis. defense expert in the george zimmerman murder trial has been on the stand now for, i think the better part of two hours. and the cross-examination has been relentless with props, with

aggression and the questioning has been tough. they're talking about the verbal aspects of a confrontation. let's listen. >> the purpose is, right? i'm a neighborhood watch person and i'd like to know what you're doing. >> yes. >> if you forward the bill, you communicate with somebody. it's always a good idea to introduce yourself. >> you would do that before using force, right? >> again, you're asking me what i would do. if i was in that same situation, there are things i would have done differently. the reality comes down to, when somebody is going off 911 calls, this gap, whatever it happens to be, he's in an environment, the golden rule of community oriented type programs, if you see something, say something. that's the whole idea. mr. zimmerman has a history of that. he's had numerous calls from a variety of reasons from children to suspicious persons.

the interaction component, is he responsible for when you walk up to somebody and if they're in a suspicious area, i'm a crime watch person. if you have the distance and ability and that comes to mind. that's fine. on the other side of that coin if i'm surprised by something communication may not be the first thing to come to my mind especially if it's a blind side. >> you did talk to adam pollock? >> i did. >> you talked to the defendant about some of those classes? >> yes, sir. >> you didn't ask the defendant how long he had been taking those classes? >> no, sir. >> you would agree that should have been asked? >> no, sir. >> did you not say that not getting that information was a failure on your part? >> yes. as i would say anything i don't ask i always take on as my responsibility. it doesn't change the outcome of an event.

it doesn't change the total influence. if he had spent three years and barely able to get into a grappling ring and he can't get in the ring with another person it's a moot point about how long he's been doing it. the end result is i got the information from the source that can give me a neutral opinion because he was the one doing the training. >> because the defendant is not neutral? >> sir, just like you said it yourself, you have to take it with a grain of salt. the only way that i can come up to a neutral opinion on anything is by giving minimal weight to mr. zimmerman and trying to find the information from some other source. depending on the variable we're asking the only source may be mr. zimmerman but sources i can get information from somewhere else i would seek that because that gives me more possibility of getting the truth. >> you didn't ask him for how

long he had been taking the class sns. >> no, sir. >> you didn't ask him how long each class was like two hours? >> generally speaking when you look at any come pattive support your looking at an hour and a half to two hours because of warm up, stretching, the actual activities, cool down and stretching again. i probably didn't ask that because the general guidance on that for physical technique type classes seems to be the norm. >> you talked a bit about trayvon martin. you wanted to know about his physical ability, right? >> i would love to have known totally about it, yes, sir. >> i believe your words was he was physically active? >> twhaz my understanding. >> you had information in middle school he played football? >> again, i believe i said it before this case began there was information in the media. >> your honor, can we approach for a moment?

>> yes. copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these maworsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? don't wait to ask your doctor about spiriva.

we had some fortunate timing. we went to break as they have gone to side bar. they have come out. let's listen. >> yes, sir. >> isn't a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm supposed to disclose that to the police when they talk to them? >> there's no law about it. >> aren't they advised to do that when you speak to law enforcement? >> you mean in person? >> i mean over the phone, in person, at all. >> not over the phone. whenever you interact if you're carrying a concealed weapon, traffic stop, interaction on the street we tell everyone that when you interact with law enforcement make sure your hands are clearly visible and you are carrying a firearm. we don't address something over the phone. i guess it would be nice.

>> to be clear the defendant did not advise the dispatcher he was carrying a firearm? >> no. >> you said you have a criminal justice degree, correct? >> yes. >> were you taught the law of self-defense? >> yes, sir. i'm sure we covered that. >> were you taught fact scenarios that constituted self-defense? >> i can't say fact scenarios. every instructor that's responsible for relating information is differently in every class. i can't speak to everybody does it. i know how i relayed the information. i can't speak to how everybody else does it. >> it was your opinion that a weapon was not used on the defendant? >> are you talking about mr. zimmerman?

there was no weapon? >> i believe that's what you said. >> yes. i didn't see any indication that a weapon of any type was used on him. >> you did see an dhaindication that a weapon was used on trayvon martin? >> yes, sir. he was shot. >> can i have just a moment? >> you may. >> mr. root, in listening to the non-emergency call in your conversation with the defendant he told you he was following

trayvon martin. >> i think the term he used was trailing which to me means following. it's the same thing. >> do you remember when the dispatcher asked him are you following him and the defendant said -- >> yes, sir. in the 911 call. he said yes. he said we don't need you to do that. >> did you read the defendant's written statement? >> i'm sure i would have. >> it's handwritten. >> i'm confident i did. i just don't recall what he written. if you asked me a question i'll tell you i don't know. i've read so many of the documents. >> i understand. >> do you recall the term that the defendant used to refer to trayvon martin in that written statement? >> no, that i honestly don't

recall the term. >> you don't recall the term suspect? >> okay. i don't directly recall it but i would take your word he wrote suspect there. >> you would agree that's a police term, right? >> sure. it's a term that we -- it's also a crime prevention term. anybody you interact with they utilize the same verbiage. in law enforcement term every individual is a certain. we refer to suspect. the bad guy. >> that's all i have. >> so i'm clear could you consider a big old piece of concrete a weapon if i hit you on the head with it? >> if you hit me in the head with it. >> if i took your head and smashed it onto concrete?

may i use this for a moment? i want to follow up on some of the questions. george zimmerman, trayvon martin. were the injuries on mr. zimmerman's consistent with someone doing this on cement? >> i don't think so. >> how about this? how about someone resisting it. could that have come from cement. if someone was resisting me from pushing down? >> i believe so. i believe it was a culmination of downward force whether it was from pushing or striking. i know clearly by the injuries to his face and that drive him back his head striking hard into the concrete. >> would you expect that somebody getting their head struck on the cement would attempt to resist it happening? >> of course.